The
Climate
Has
Changed
Why bold, low carbon action makes good business sense.
Foreword One
Foreword by Christiana Figueres
Climate action was once perceived
by many governments and many
businesses as about sacrifice.
Today, the value proposition is very
different. Today, it is the sacrifice
economies and communities will
increasingly have to make if the world
fails to address climate change and
the buildup of greenhouse gases.
This is why I welcome the way leading
business groups have come together
to establish We Mean Business.
This unprecedented collaboration is
a clear signal to governments that
business is serious about tackling
climate change and is ready to lead.
It is part of a growing momentum
for change that is happening in
every corner of the globe and
across economies, sectors and
communities—a momentum that can
build the confidence of policymakers
to ink a new universal climate
agreement in Paris that is both
meaningful and visionary.
This report demonstrates just how
many companies all around the
world are embracing a transition
to a low carbon economy by
their commitment to decouple
emissions from growth.
These businesses, many of which
are household names, are setting
ambitious goals for reducing their
carbon footprint, delivering on these
targets and helping their suppliers
and customers to do the same.
These companies are seizing the
opportunity and developing a range
of innovative products and services
that can assist everyone to contribute
to building a better future.
But we all know that the existing
policies, actions and opportunities will
only take us so far.
If the world wants to reach the goal
of keeping a global temperature rise
under 2 degrees C, emissions need
to peak within a decade, a deep, decarbonization of the global economy
must occur and we must achieve
climate neutrality—also termed net
zero emissions—in the second half of
the century.
To realize that vision, business
needs more ambitious, clearer and
longer-term policy frameworks
that enable bolder investments into
a net zero carbon and resilient global
economy.
Investments that flow—and flow
at scale and with speed—into
a transformation of energy,
transportation and manufacturing;
into the greening of cities and
infrastructure and into our forests,
soils and other natural systems—
that will also be at the center of a
sustainable century.
An international agreement in Paris
that puts in the pathways and the
policies that supports a true business
transformation can be the catalyst
towards our shared, long-term aims.
I would ask policymakers—both
at the national and international
level—to listen to those business
groups in the We Mean Business
coalition calling for forwardthinking policy to cut carbon.
The future will happen by default
or by design. Over the next 16
months, governments and business
alongside cities and citizens have the
opportunity to be the architects of
positive change that echoes to the
needs and the aspirations of this
generation and generations to come.
Christiana Figueres
Executive Secretary
UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change
i
Foreword two
Foreword by we mean business
The climate has changed. Climate
change is one of the planet’s
greatest risks, yet tackling it is
also one of our greatest economic
opportunities.
Today, we have the data to show
that ambitious climate action makes
business sense. And as we start to
see the impact of unchecked climate
change around the globe, the costs of
inaction for businesses, policymakers
and consumers continue to rise.
Exponentially.
The evidence from CDP, on which
this report is based, points to great
opportunities for more companies to
make emissions reductions in their
own assets and operations. While
this approach is important, we must
recognize the additional need to
completely transform industries and
society. We must aim for a net zero
emissions society in the long term,
underpinned by a transformation
of the energy system and many
completely different products and
services. The partners in WE MEAN
BUSINESS are supporting companies
in their long-term planning for this
transformation, which recognize
both the scale of expected demand
increases and the trillion tonne
cumulative carbon challenge.
The low carbon revolution already
offers huge opportunities for
business, the economy and society.
Companies are saving billions by
implementing energy efficiency
measures and revolutionary low
carbon technologies, and introducing
new products and services at an
extraordinary rate.
This innovation is generating
employment, reducing carbon
footprints and saving money.
But so much more can be done. We
need more business leaders to lead
and policymakers to put the right
policies in place.
We ask for two things.
First, we call on the rest of the private
sector to follow businesses that have
taken the lead—and have positive
results to show for it. The time for
incrementalism is over. We need
bold comprehensive action—by all
companies—to embrace change
and participate in this transition
to a low carbon economy. Energy
companies in particular have a
crucial role to play.
ii
Second, we call on policymakers
to create policies that enable more
companies to invest in a low carbon
economy on a significant scale. They
need legislative encouragement and
market signals that only governments
can provide. Businesses need policies
that are forward looking, stable and
long term. This will give them the
confidence to commit significant
capital to scale up clean energy
and energy efficiency investments.
Good-paying jobs and more resilient
companies and communities will be
an added benefit.
As some of the leading business
organizations on climate change
issues, we work with thousands of
businesses and investors managing
trillions who are ready to accelerate
the momentum on investing in a
low carbon economy. Although we
recognize that transitioning from a
high carbon to a low carbon economy
is more challenging for some sectors
than others, We Mean Business
represents an unprecedented
opportunity for us—across all sectors
of the economy—to work together,
commit and act on climate action.
So we ask policymakers to recognize
that investing in climate action is an
economic imperative with enormous
opportunities.
We Mean Business because
#wemeanit.
A new, cleaner-energy economy will
improve public health, provide more
energy security and help alleviate
poverty for billions of people around
the world. Many businesses are
ready. Now governments must act.
Aron Cramer, President & CEO
Mark Kenber, CEO
Paul Simpson, CEO
Sandrine Dixson-DeclÈve, Director
Mindy Lubber, President
Peter Bakker, President & CEO
Rajiv Joshi, Managing Director
iii
Table of COntents
We Mean Business............................................................................................vi
Executive Summary....................................................................................... viii
Introduction...................................................................................................xiv
Section one: Making Good Financial Returns............................................ 1
Section Two: Maximizing Carbon Returns ................................................. 9
Section Three: How to Accelerate the Low Carbon Economy............ 21
Table I..................................................................................................................... 28
ANNEX I: The Science........................................................................................... 29
ANNEX II: Methodology and Data Sources..................................................... 30
v
WE MEAN BUSINESS
We Mean Business is a coalition of organizations1 working with thousands of the world’s most influential businesses
and investors. These businesses recognize that the transition to a low carbon economy is the only way to secure
sustainable economic growth and prosperity for all. To accelerate this transition, we have formed a common
platform to amplify the business voice, catalyze bold climate action by all and promote smart policy frameworks.
Leading businesses:
ACKNOWLEDGE the
science.
The Earth is on a path to a mean
temperature rise of 1.5°C to 4.5°C
by the end of the century and
governments have agreed that the
global temperature rise should be
kept to 2°C above pre-industrial
levels to avoid the worst climate
impacts.
ACT to reduce
CO2e emissions
and enhance
resilience.
Companies should set ambitious
targets to reduce carbon emissions
across their value chain and plan
investments and activities to deliver
these targets. This may involve
major improvements in energy
efficiency, procuring renewablygenerated electricity and other low
carbon sources of energy, using an
internal price on carbon for strategic
planning, working with suppliers
and other business partners to
incentivize them to reduce their
emissions and providing carbonreducing options to others.
Companies should use ambitious
targets to innovate and create new
business opportunities—harnessing
design and innovation to reduce the
lifecycle impacts of products and
services.
Companies should also take
meaningful action to improve the
resilience of operations, supply
chains and communities in the
face of an uncertain climate in the
future—including full assessment of
climate-related risks and adequate
investment in infrastructures and
capacity building to meet them.
1
BSR, The B Team, CDP, Ceres, The Climate
Group, The Prince of Wales's Corporate
Leaders Group and WBCSD
vi
ADVOCATE for
a low carbon
future.
Companies should actively support
public policy to bring about a low
carbon transition and ensure that
all public policy advocacy by the
company (and bodies of which it is
a member) is consistent on climate
science.
Companies can demonstrate
their dedication to the low carbon
agenda by publicly sharing best
practice examples that illustrate the
feasibility of ambitious leadership.
They can also communicate all
of the above in a consistent and
standardized way, using the CO2e
Protocol and a well-established
process such as the annual CDP
public disclosure process.
We Mean Business asks
policymakers to help
the private sector go
further:
Stabilize global
emissions by 2020
and set aggressive
long-term goals
Establishing a clear long-term global
goal will provide the necessary
direction to business decision
makers such as net zero emissions
well before the end of the century.
By 2015, we seek government
action to increase the level of
urgency and ambition to stabilize
global emissions before the end of
this decade.
Improve
transparency
and encourage
investment
We support continued
implementation of domestic policies
through to 2030 that support bold
business action to cut emissions,
including:
We support improved transparency
and accountability in monitoring
climate ambition and action.
We want policy to help create a
stable and predictable low carbon
investment environment. And we
need continued scale up of public
finance to support resiliencebuilding and accelerate low carbon
investment by the private sector.
•eliminating subsidies that
incentivize high carbon energy
•enacting meaningful pricing of
carbon
•ending deforestation
•putting in place robust energy
efficiency standards
•supporting the scale-up of low
carbon energy
•ensuring that all policy regimes
dealing with fiscal, energy,
industry and trade-related
issues provide actionable
incentives for an early transition
to a low carbon future
vii
The climate has changed.
Executive Summary
Companies can
be confident
that creating
a low carbon
strategy
makes good
business sense
Many companies are
achieving an average
IRR of 27% on their low
carbon investments.
viii
A group of companies identified
in this report are demonstrating
bold leadership on climate
action driven by the risks
and opportunities they know
climate change will bring to their
businesses. Smart policy from
leading governments at all levels
is creating opportunities for low
carbon innovation that is helping to
drive the transition to a low carbon
economy.
But with global emissions
continuing to climb, we
know that businesses and
policymakers need to and
must do more. And we
must do this together.
To understand the low carbon
business case in more detail,
We Mean Business carried
out a review of the actions and
investments companies reported
to CDP in 2013 and 2014.2 We
wanted to see how companies are
currently acting on climate change.
We looked at how corporate targets
align with the science and what is
motivating companies to develop
low carbon business strategies. And
we considered the role that policy
is currently playing and how it can
support further action.
The data provides
compelling evidence
that smart climate action
makes business sense.
2Analysis of CDP 2013 and CDP 2014 data - 2012
and 2013 company performance data,
respectively. The data set used for this study includes 1,763 companies. Of this 1,763, 1,455 provided information that enabled further analysis of carbon reductions and investment in low carbon actions.
Between 2012 and 2013, almost
1,450 companies reported carbon
savings3 of just over 420M metric
tonnes per year through internal
investment of more than US$170B
in low carbon projects. Within the
six regions4 highlighted in the study,
this included around US$140B
investment in nearly 5,500 projects
that are delivering annual carbon
savings of a little over 320M metric
tonnes.
The most forward-thinking
companies, those that have set
targets that align with the science
and have reduced their emissions
intensity from 2012 to 2013, are
achieving a better financial return
on low carbon investment relative
to their peers. These companies7
invested 7.5% of the global total
investments made by companies in
this study and reported an average
IRR of 27% on US$8.2B invested.
The low carbon investments
highlighted in Section 1 of this
report provide clear evidence that
some measures simply make good
financial sense and that businesses
can do more now. For example,
the Internal Rate of Return [IRR]5
for process energy efficiency
measures in South Africa is
46%. In the US, process energy
efficiency measures get an even
higher IRR of 81%.
The reason they outperform
others isn't because their attitude
to climate change risks and
opportunities is different, but
because the way they act upon
them is different. Forward-thinking
companies are quicker to spot
opportunities to make smart, costeffective business decisions that
align with a low carbon economy.
They have made a strategic decision
to set aggressive carbon reduction
targets and to take low carbon
actions that have high financial
returns. But these actions will need
to be balanced with an increasing
number of investments that
deliver bigger carbon reductions
going forward. The processes,
technologies and knowledge
uncovered by taking these more
challenging actions will in turn drive
improved returns in future projects.
In other cases, it is clear that policy
is a key driver for investment in low
carbon action. Policy-driven action
is successfully reducing carbon
emissions in areas where a good
financial return alone would not
have justified the investment. For
example, European renewable
energy policy ensured that 72% of
the continent’s new power capacity
came from renewable sources in
2013­—just a decade ago, 80% came
from fossil fuels6. However, the
average IRR on low carbon energy
installation in the European utility
sector was 0%—an indication of the
success and importance of policy in
driving company action.
3
We use ‘carbon’ here as short-hand for ‘carbon
dioxide equivalent’ or ‘CO2e’.
4
Brazil, China, EU, India, South Africa, US
5 IRR is a measure used by businesses globally to
determine the internal financial return of their investments.
6 REN21, Renewables 2014 Global Status Report, 2014
ix
We also found that companies
making the proportionately largest
investments (relative to overall
operating costs) in low carbon
solutions get an equal if not higher
rate of return than their peers in the
same regions.
7
Based on data from 85 of the 110 companies referenced in Section 2 who reported investments that passed the Investment and Carbon filters (see Annex II for more details of the methodology used for this analysis).
FORWARD-THINKING BUSINESSES TAKE A BALANCED
APPROACH TO LOW CARBON INVESTMENT.
Overall, they achieve good financial returns and reduce their carbon emissions.
PROJECTS
POLICY MEASURES
IRR
Increase the attractiveness of
high carbon return measures.
Deliver processes, technologies
and knowledge that reduce
carbon emissions and can drive
improved financial and carbon
returns in future projects.
LOW CARBON
PORTFOLIO
Overall collection of projects
deliver carbon emission
reduction targets and meet an
acceptable IRR.
SOME PROJECTS HAVE VERY ATTRACTIVE FINANCIAL RETURNS:
EMISSIONS TARGET
Earn back cost of capital above
internally set hurdle rate.
PROJECTS WITH
MEDIUM TO
LONG-TERM PAYBACK
HURDLE RATE
Employee engagement program to
raise awareness of how to save
energy. Financial incentives and
other benefits can help to
maximize results.
Investment in more energy
efficient HVAC (heating, ventilation
and air conditioning) units.
Replacement of old, oil-fired
boilers with new, energy-efficient
biogas units.
Installation of geothermal power
generation plant.
CARBON RETURN
x
Capture waste heat for use in
industrial processes and space
heating.
SOME PROJECTS DELIVER SIGNIFICANT CARBON EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS WITH MEDIUM TO LONG-TERM PAYBACK PERIODS:
Retrofit of older building stock
including insulation and
implementation of building
services control mechanisms.
0%
Implementation of LED lighting
and automated lighting control
system.
xi
Replacement of light vehicle and
company car fleet with electric
vehicles.
Executive Summary
It's clear
that the
business climate has changed
Policy is creating the
conditions for private
sector investment in low
carbon action, but more
needs to be done.
xii
The data also demonstrate that
the majority of companies are not
yet on a low carbon pathway. And
even the most forward-thinking
companies in this study are still only
making short-term commitments
to carbon reductions. For them
to make more investments that
achieve aggressive carbon
emissions reductions, targeted
policy support is needed.
We can do more and
we must.
Businesses that are not already
on a low carbon pathway can
be confident that creating a low
carbon strategy makes good
business sense. Investment in the
readily available options to reduce
carbon and save energy will deliver
tangible benefits. And by balancing
those actions that have a high
financial return with those that
deliver significant carbon reductions
companies can ensure that—
across their range of low carbon
investments—they are still achieving
financial returns acceptable to the
CFO. This can also act as a powerful
driver of innovation for businesses
in terms of the services or products
that they provide.
Policy can help to incentivize
companies to invest in measures
that are more costly, but that
result in higher levels of emission
reductions. The key lies in three
areas: 1) Setting smart regulations
that create demand for low
carbon products and services; 2)
Developing policies and financial
incentives to make the low carbon
actions with the potential for the
biggest carbon cuts more financially
attractive; and, 3) Setting long-term
targets that encourage companies
to do the same and therefore
enable more strategic business
thinking about investment in low
carbon action with a long-term
payback.
While these kinds of policies are
not new, the findings of this report
make it clear that they drive and
enable businesses to create the
products and services that are
achieving carbon reductions
today. And by ensuring smart
policies and measures are
maintained and strengthened over
time, policymakers can provide
businesses with incentives and
certainty to make deeper emissions
cuts in the future. Overall collection
of projects delivers carbon emission
reduction targets and meet an
acceptable internal rate of return.
Based on the findings
in this report, it is also
clear that different policy
approaches may be
needed to help businesses
in different regions.
We found that in India and South
Africa, companies are able to profit
from early-mover opportunities
and get more carbon return out of
their investments than their peers.
Support will be needed to make
sure that these companies, and
others, continue to have access
to the capital and technology
that will support a low carbon
transformation.
In the EU and the US, even the most
forward-thinking companies are
finding it challenging to focus on
the measures with higher carbon
returns. Extra incentives might be
needed in key sectors where the
early win-wins are less available and
for those measures that have the
potential to reduce emissions on a
transformational scale.
xiii
It’s clear that the business
climate has changed - companies
around the world are making smart
low carbon investments that make
good business sense. The most
successful companies are achieving
this by taking a balanced approach
to their low carbon investments –
complementing projects with high
financial returns and high carbon
returns.
Policy has already encouraged
businesses into a low carbon
transition. More aggressive policy
is now needed to send the right
signal to business about climate
action that puts us on a low
carbon path.
Introduction
The transition
to a low carbon
economy
is already
happeninG.
As the low carbon economy
evolves, key questions need
to be addressed:
•How does this transition impact
on business?
•What actions are companies
taking to reduce carbon?
•Which companies are providing
the products and services that cut
carbon?
•How can policy help?
Based on the information provided
by 1,763 companies in their CDP
2013 and CDP 2014 responses, this
report gives a global snapshot of what
the low carbon economy looks like
today and highlights key trends in
six strategic regions—Brazil,8 China,9
Europe (EU),10 India, South Africa and
the United States of America (US).
It also looks at what the low carbon
economy means for different industry
sectors, all of which are responding to
a variety of pressures and making the
most of cost-effective opportunities.
Making good
8 Limited company information is available from Brazil.
9 Limited company information is available from China. CDP’s own China Report for 2013 explains that, although reporting is on the increase, there is still limited information available, particularly around emissions reporting (CDP, China Report: Are Enterprises Ready for Carbon Trading? 2013)
10 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
xiv
The report explores how companies are helping to shape the low
carbon economy in three sections:
financial returns
Section 1 looks at what low carbon
actions can deliver a solid return on
internal investment for companies.
These are easy wins in today’s low
carbon economy‚actions that all
businesses can take advantage
of now.
Making good
carbon returns
Section 2 investigates the actions
companies are taking that deliver
a good carbon return (i.e., deliver
good carbon savings or reductions)
but have longer payback periods. It
explores why companies make these
choices and whether it’s enough to
get us on a low carbon path—which
means keeping temperature rise to
within two degrees C.11 The results
show the limitations of today’s low
carbon economy but demonstrate
there’s a business appetite to do
more.
action, so transforming the planet’s
low carbon future.
There are already tangible
opportunities for businesses to
balance their internal investment
and carbon returns in a way that will
continue to develop the low carbon
economy. But changes could happen
much more rapidly and radically
if government and business work
more closely together to focus on
the opportunities that have not yet
been realized. The environment will
benefit, consumers will benefit and
the economy will benefit. But it needs
concerted, collaborative action.
Constructive collaboration is the
driving force behind the We Mean
Business coalition.
A balanced
Approach
Section 3 uncovers the benefits
of balancing carbon and financial
returns on investment. The
conclusions highlight how more
businesses can reap rewards by
making smart investments today
and also how government policy
can help unlock more opportunities.
These actions will enable us to
dramatically increase ambition and
11 See Annex I for further explanation of the science.
xv
Businesses must find
responsible ways to deliver
substantial returns for
their shareholders. Low
carbon investments give
them this opportunity –
Making
Good
financial
Returns
xvi
Businesses must find responsible ways to deliver
substantial returns for their shareholders. Low carbon
investments give them this opportunity—and some are
taking it. The key is to make sure all businesses reap
these rewards.
1
Low carbon actions in key regions
Section one
A
cross the world, and in many businesses
and sectors, companies are making
investments to reduce their carbon
emissions and they are, in many cases,
achieving very high internal rates of
return (IRR).
In some cases, the financial argument alone is worth the
investment—the environmental benefits are a valuable
bonus.
The figures below highlight the most financially attractive
low carbon opportunities and the measures that have
resulted in the highest levels of emissions saved across
key regions and sectors.
The colored sections on the charts represent low carbon actions,12 and the size of the colored section shows which actions have been used to
save the most emissions reductions in key region and sectors. The % figures on the charts show the internal rate of return for each action. The
chart tells us to what extent companies are investing in actions with the highest rate of return to reduce emissions.13 The figure in the middle of
the charts indicates the annual carbon savings delivered by these climate actions.
12 The list of low carbon actions presented here is not exhaustive, but it is based on the categorization used in the CDP questionnaire.
13 The sample is based on reported data from investments in 7,676 projects between 2012 and 2013. Of these, 2,530 were in the EU and 1,752 were in the US.
6%
IRR
6%
IRR
Low carbon actions
13%
IRR
13%
IRR
EU
216.4M
EU
Energy efficient
buildings
Measures to improve energy efficiency of buildings, e.g., insulation.
Energy efficiency
in buildings
Measures to improve energy efficiency of energy use in buildings, e.g., LED
lighting, smart meter, efficient HVAC (heating, ventilation air conditioning).
Process Emissions
Reductions
Measures to optimize energy and resource use in manufacturing and
industrial processes, e.g., waste heat recovery.
Energy Efficient
Industrial Processes
Measures to reduce emissions in manufacturing processes, e.g., replacing
equipment or changes to operating systems.
Fugitive emissions
reductions Measures to reduce unintended industrial greenhouse gas leakages, e.g.,
natural gas pipeline leaks, CFC venting.
Low carbon
energy purchase
Low carbon energy procured from the grid, e.g., renewable energy.
Low carbon
energy installation
Low carbon energy installed on-site or off-site, e.g., solar panels installed on
roofs.
Fleet emissions
reductions
Measures to reduce emissions from vehicles owned by the company, e.g.,
replacement of fleet with electric vehicles.
Transport
emission reductions
Measures to reduce emissions from product transportation or employee
travel, e.g., switching from air to rail freight.
Behavioral
change
Measures to encourage changes in employee behavior that will reduce energy
use or carbon emissions, such as switching off lights or cycling to work.
TONNES
216.4M
CO2E
TONNES
CO2E
2%
IRR
2%
IRR
19%
IRR
19%
IRR
-21%
IRR
-21%
IRR
-7%
IRR
-7%
IRR
-2%
IRR
-2%
IRR
22%
IRR
22%
IRR
-21%
IRR
-21%
IRR
INDIA
2.7M
INDIA
TONNES
2.7M
CO2E
TONNES
CO2E
13% 5% 57% 272%
IRR IRR IRR IRR
13% 5% 57% 272%
IRR IRR IRR IRR
2
The black slice
of the chart
indicates
projects that
delivered <1%
annual carbon
emissions.
TONNES
29.1M
CO2E
TONNES
CO2E
81%
IRR
81%
IRR
2% 28% -31% 109% 12%
IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
2% 28% -31% 109% 12%
IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
colored sections
represent low
carbon actions
and which ones
have been used
to save the
most emissions
reductions
46%
IRR
46%
IRR
-77%
IRR
-77%
IRR
7%
IRR
7%
IRR
US
29.1M
US
23%
IRR
23%
IRR
20%
IRR
20%
IRR
SOUTH
AFRICA
SOUTH
18.7M
AFRICA
TONNES
18.7M
CO2E
TONNES
CO2E
-7% -25% 280% 10%
IRR IRR IRR IRR
-7% -25% 280% 10%
IRR IRR IRR IRR
% figures show
the internal rate
of return for
each action
Improving
energy
efficiency
makes good
business
sense
G
lobally, the average IRR
for improving the energy
efficiency of industrial
processes is 23%.
In the US, where this is the biggest
source of emission savings, companies
make a much higher return of 81%.
Process efficiency has also resulted
in the highest levels of emissions
savings in India, South Africa and
Brazil, and the second highest in the
EU. The IRR rates for adopting these
measures are high across many
regions and business sectors.
It should be noted that although
energy efficiency is crucial for
reducing emissions in a cost-effective
way, there is a limit to how far it can
carry us relative to the emissions
reductions that are ultimately needed.
Simple changes
in behavior
deliver easy wins
High emitters see the business
benefits of low carbon action
Steel
Over the last 30 years, energy
consumption per tonne of steel has
reduced by 50%. Steel companies
reporting low carbon investments
between 2012 and 2013 gained
an average IRR of almost 25% and
average annual emissions reductions
of around 7M tonnes CO2e—in both
developed and emerging economies.
In India, JSW Steel’s, Vijayanagar
Works in Bellary invested US$11.6M
in a waste heat recovery plant. This
will reduce carbon emissions by
approximately 140K tonnes each year
for the next two decades—saving
2.8M tonnes CO2e over the lifetime of
the project and US$4.5M a year. Tata
Steel is also seeing the cost benefits
of waste heat and gas recovery. Two
projects at its Jamshedpur steel works
saved an estimated 1.2M CO2e tonnes
and US$750,000 per year, across
direct operations and through the
value chain.
Arcelor Mittal invested US$207M
in low carbon projects in 2013 to
support its target of reducing CO2e
emissions by 8% by 2020, from a
baseline of 2007. As well as finding
ways of reducing its own emissions,
it’s also developing new products for
electric vehicles, low carbon and more
resilient buildings, and infrastructure
like flood defense systems.
Mining
Mining companies are also making
savings by improving energy
efficiency, with knock-on benefits
of reduced water use, too—a major
advantage in areas where climate
change has led to water shortages.
4
Of the mining companies reporting
investment in low carbon projects
between 2012-13, the average IRR
was approximately 115%, achieving
average annual carbon reductions
of 34K tonnes CO2e in developed
countries and 160K tonnes CO2e in
emerging economies.
South African mining company
Harmony Gold has a low carbon
strategy that involves closing carbonintensive deep mining operations,
using more renewable energy and
investing in energy-efficiency projects.
It invested US$22.5M in 2012-13, and
forecasts annual emission reductions
of 125K tonnes CO2e.
Shipping
The shipping sector has also been
focused on improving efficiency.
Cargill, along with 27 other major
companies, actively prefer more
efficient vessels when moving their
goods by sea. As the cargo-owner
pays for the fuel 70% of the time
in the shipping industry, these
companies have benefited from
reduced fuel costs and reduced
carbon—helping hit company
sustainability objectives and
improving the bottom line.14 The
savings from choosing more efficient
vessels are huge. The difference
between a "B rated" and "F rated"
vessel (scale goes from A to G) can
result in US$400,000 worth of fuel
savings and 2,000 tonnes of CO2e
saved on a single journey from
Brazil to China.15 At scale, the industry
14 The Carbon War Room, New Shipping Report: Hidden Treasure: New Models for Retrofits, 2014.
15 The Carbon War Room, Calculating and Comparing CO2 Emissions from the Global Maritime Fleet, 2013.
could be saving US$70B a year
in fuel—with no change in policy
and using currently available
technology.
Energy
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
technologies have been used
successfully within the oil and
gas sector for decades and when
used for enhanced oil and gas
recovery can make economic sense.
They have been identified by the
International Energy Agency and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change as critical technologies for
a cost-effective transition to a low
carbon economy. But to make it
economically viable beyond the
oil and gas sector, it will need
policy support to drive deployment
and provide the opportunity for
research and development to
improve the commercialization and
scalability of the technologies.
Based on the data reviewed for this
study, companies reported 19 CCS
projects in 2012 to 2013. Half were
in the oil and gas industry and half
were in the utilities sector where
government support has helped
subsidize pilot projects.
One of the largest new projects
reported is being led by Chevron.
The Gorgon project plans to capture
3.4M tonnes CO2e per year and
store it underground. It is estimated
to cost US$37B for the first phase
of development, which is now 60%
complete.
S
imple energy saving
steps like switching
off lights and computers
or limiting use of air
conditioning and heating
can deliver a massive
return on investment
across all business sectors
and locations—often, in less
than a year.
In some cases, there is no financial
investment required. Many
companies appoint internal ‘energy
management champions’ who
can motivate staff with strategies
designed to reduce waste and use
less water and electricity.
Care must be taken that potentially
large cost savings from these
simple changes are not reinvested
in other activities that may undercut
emissions savings.
The small things add up
Simple measures like switching off lights and
computers at the end of the day, closing drafty
warehouse doors and easing off on the air
conditioning need little upfront investment and
empower staff to look for ways to cut out waste
and save energy.
Companies who said they
had taken action to change
behavior in 2012 and 2013
saved 2.7M tonnes CO2e with
an average IRR of 88%.
BT, a UK-based telecoms
company with well-established
employee engagement
programs, indicates that 78%
of employees were actively
engaged in reducing energy
consumption.
Altron, a South African
information technology
company, instigated its energy
savings campaign by asking
employees to take simple
5
measures like switching off
lights and air conditioning.
They estimate they cut CO2e
emissions by 230,000 tonnes
per year, with investment
recouped after less than a
year.
Banco Santander has set
an energy saving plan that
targets employee behavior
change to help reduce energy
use. Employee engagement
is key to driving behavioral
changes and is helped
via remuneration based
on performance against
sustainability objectives.
Renewable Energy
is a Smart investment
Product regulation has helped
support win-win strategies for business
B
T
ased on the data used in
this report, it was found
that renewable energy
investments resulted in the
highest level of emissions
reductions globally.
A great deal of this investment has
been in the European utilities sector,
but increasingly a broad range of
companies are installing their own
low carbon power. This is a trend
also reported in Bloomberg New
Energy Finance’s, Global Corporate
Renewable Energy Index (CREX).
A company’s motives for investing in
renewable energy vary. For instance,
it may be to combat inflated energy
prices or increasing uncertainty
over supply. For others, there are
reputational benefits. And for more
and more companies, it simply makes
good business sense.
Those companies whose best
opportunity to reduce emissions is in
their building stock (the finance and
retail sectors, for example) saw a 29%
IRR on renewable energy investments
such as installing solar panels on the
roofs of offices and warehouses. For
those in the industrial sectors, where
the scale of investment in renewable
energy is significantly larger, the
average return on renewable
installations was 22%.
Going 100% Renewable
Three businesses that have put renewable energy investment
at the heart of their business and energy management
strategies are IKEA, Apple and BT.
IKEA is committed to getting
100% of its power from
renewable sources by 2020. So
far, it has installed 700,000 solar
panels across its retail stores,
offices and factories and more
than 200 wind turbines have
been built off-site. 1,425 GWh
of renewable energy has been
generated—equivalent to over a
third of total consumption. IKEA
plans to invest a total of US$2B
over the next five years.
Apple has committed to power
all of its offices, data centers
and retail stores with 100%
renewable energy. In fiscal year
2013, Apple invested more than
US$100M to double the solar
and biogas fuel cell projects
supporting its Maiden data
center. The investment increased
the data center's renewable
energy capacity to 50MW, which
generates 167 million kilowatthours of renewable energy
per year, enough to power the
equivalent of more than 13,800
homes. Since 2013, all Apple
data centers have been powered
by 100% renewable energy—so
iTunes customers have been
assured that downloading won’t
contribute to climate change.
BT has a contract to purchase
100% renewable electricity for all
its UK operations, estimated to
represent approximately 0.75%
of all power use in the UK. They
will purchase enough renewable
energy from a Scottish wind
farm to power its entire Scottish
operations, which will equate to
an investment of almost US$0.5B
over the next 20 years.
he strong financial
returns from
implementing low carbon
solutions across sectors and
regions are in part due to the
decreasing cost of advanced
low carbon technologies such
as LED lighting and energy
efficient IT equipment.
Product-based regulation has helped
to drive this. This type of policy has
multiple benefits: it responds
to customer demands for ways
to reduce the amount they are
spending on energy and it creates
opportunities in the marketplace for
new products, without specifying the
type of technology that needs to be
used. This leads to product innovation
and enables customers to select the
win-win efficiency opportunities that
best fit their needs.
Products that are shaping the low carbon economy
LEDs
LED technology, which uses 50-70%
less energy16 than conventional
lighting, has enormous energy and
cost-saving benefits for businesses,
households and cities. Government
regulations phasing out incandescent
lighting gave this new low carbon
technology a huge helping hand.
In 2013, over 400 companies
report implementing LED projects
to support their low carbon
commitments. Companies like
Philips and Osram have seized
this market opportunity—worth
US$4.8 billion in 2012 and predicted
to rise to US$42 billion by 2019.17
potential for the grid to help store
excess renewable energy Regulations
and financial incentives have helped
to create market opportunities for
car companies to develop EVs.
BMW, Ford, Nissan, Tesla and
Toyota are all carving a place in
the US EV market that grew by 35%
in the first half of 2014.18 Over 60
of the companies included in this
study report investment in EVs in
2013. This involved switching fleet,
encouraging EVs through company
car schemes and providing charging
stations for employees and
customers.
SMART ICT
Governments see multiple benefits
of electric vehicles (EVs). In addition
to saving carbon emissions, they
can improve air quality in urban
areas and provide valuable battery
It is estimated that Information
and Communications Technology
(ICT) could enable a 15% reduction
in CO2e by 2020 as a result of
improved energy efficiency of
products and helping customers
manage energy in smarter ways.19
16 The Climate Group, Lighting the Clean Revolution: The Rise of LEDs and What it Means for Cities, 2012
18 Brad Plumer, The Rise of the Electric Car in the US, in 6 Charts, Vox, 2014
17 Winter Green Research, LED Lighting: Market Shares, Strategies, and Forecasts, Worldwide,
2013 to 2019, Researchmoz, 2013
19 The Climate Group, Smart 2020: Enabling the Low Carbon Economy in the Information Age, Global e-sustainability Initiative, 2008
Electric Vehicles
There are clear opportunities for
companies in India and South Africa
where renewable energy projects
result in an IRR of 20% and 10%,
respectively, and achieved the second
highest level of emission reductions in
both countries.
6
Overall, companies see product
efficiency regulation as an opportunity
rather than a risk. (See Section 2 for
further information.) It provides a
useful ‘carrot’ for the most innovative
companies that are set to thrive in the
low carbon economy. They are able
to allocate R&D spend to low carbon
and energy efficient solutions, safe
in the knowledge that there will be a
market for their products.
Companies are responding to
product regulation and energy
efficiency standards such as the US
EPA’s Energy Star label. Apple’s
entire product range exceeds the
Energy Star requirements and 98%
of Lenovo’s notebooks meet
the standards. Intel’s fourth
generation processors help PC
manufacturers achieve this: they
provide increased computer power,
but require 50% less energy than
first generation models.
IT leaders are also helping
customers to reduce energy use in
data centers. HP has just launched a
new server that uses up to 89% less
energy and costs 77% less than a
traditional server.
Mobile phone giant China Mobile
is reduced energy consumption
of its networks by 38% each year,
helping to reduce their customer’s
carbon footprint. And Wipro has
developed a number of energy
management software tools in
response to the increased demand
from clients looking for data
management tools that enable them
to become more energy efficient.
Maximizing
Carbon
Returns
8
Companies don't only invest in the low carbon actions
with the best financial return. They also invest in
measures that have a good carbon return—those that
deliver high levels of carbon emission savings.
9
For companies across all sectors,
enhancing reputation and adapting to
changing customer demand are important
factors influencing their choices.
Section Two
Many Factors Motivate Business
to take Low Carbon Action
F
inancial returns are only
one of the many factors
that businesses consider
when developing low carbon
strategies.
Many companies are already factoring
in the potential impact that climate
change will have on their business
due to changing weather conditions,
resource scarcity, changing customer
needs, potential legislation and
the likelihood of a price on carbon.
Although the payback periods for
certain low carbon investments
may not fit normal decision-making
criteria, the wider benefits and long
term value for shareholders means
that smart businesses are investing in
projects that will help them prepare
for the future.
For example, in Europe, some of
the most cost-effective measures to
improve building efficiency may have
already been seized. However, the
findings in this study indicate that
companies are still moving ahead
and investing in more aggressive
opportunities for cutting energy
bills. Motivations for this include
increasingly stringent building
regulations and increasing demand
for energy efficiency buildings
to combat against rising energy
costs. Across the value chain, the
construction sector is taking action.
Building for the Future
The construction sector is innovating to ensure new
buildings have a smaller carbon footprint and are more
resilient to changing climate conditions such as more
extreme weather events and bigger temperature extremes.
Building standards such as LEED (Leadership in Energy &
Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology)
have helped to raise standards for new buildings and
retrofitting exiting ones.
Skanska has an ultimate goal
for net zero primary energy in
buildings and net zero carbon
emissions in construction and
has already built some of the
world’s greenest buildings.
Throughout the construction
supply chain, companies are
working to reduce carbon
emissions. Cement producer
Pretoria Portland in South
Africa is reducing the carbon
10
intensity of its products through
process efficiency technologies
and using renewable energy.
Arcelor Mittal is reducing
the carbon intensity of steel
used for buildings construction.
And companies like Broad
are continuously innovating to
provide more energy efficient
technologies for heating, cooling
and lighting that can dramatically
reduce energy use over the
course of a building's lifetime.
Below we list a range of climate and low carbon drivers that impact on business
decision making. Some key findings are as follows:
Corporate
reputation is a major
motivation in all sectors,
particularly for firms in the EU and
US. Companies are also seeing
and responding to the changing
needs of consumers and B2B
customers, for example, around
products with improved efficiency.
Voluntary
Agreements are seen as
an opportunity in all regions and
sectors, although by a fairly small
number of companies.
International
Agreements, in general, fall
very closely on the line between
risk and opportunity for the
majority of companies. In the
Transport sector they are seen
as slightly more as a risk, but for
the utilities they are one of the
top five opportunities. Compared
to other regions, international
agreements are seen as more of
an opportunity in India, Brazil and
also in the EU where companies
would presumably benefit from a
more level playing field, with caps
being introduced across a greater
number of regions.
Policy covers a range of
regulations and policy measures
that create legal obligations for
companies. Many businesses
respond to the likelihood of more
environmental regulation given
the scientific evidence for the
need to address climate change.
Product efficiency regulation
and labeling requirements
help businesses react to changing
customer expectations and many
reporting to CDP cite them as
opportunities.
Market mechanisms,
like fuel and energy taxes, carbon
taxation and cap and trade
schemes (carbon pricing) are
generally seen as slightly more of a
risk than an opportunity. However,
in the utilities sector, where
cap and trade has had arguably
the biggest impact to date, the
opportunity ranking for cap and
trade is higher. This probably
underlines how uncertainty
around some of these measures is
driving the risk perception in other
sectors.
Renewable energy regulation
(such as feed-in tariffs) also
features as an opportunity driver
for the utilities and we would
expect to see more companies
reporting this once feed-in tariffs
are more widely used and better
established. (Even in Europe, for
example, the coverage for feed-in
tariffs is mixed).
11
Weather impacts like
changes in rainfall and increasing
temperature extremes are
reported as significant risks across
all sectors and regions, especially
emerging economies where the
allocation of natural resources is
also a key factor.
Social
considerations such
as increased risk of certain
diseases and added strain on
social conditions have an impact
on people too. Businesses must
be responsive, especially in those
parts of the world most vulnerable
to climate change.
Are Corporate Actions in
line with the Climate Science?
INCREASED #
OF COMPANIES
REPORTING
RISK
Reputation
Customer Demand
Fuel Taxes & Policy
Droughts/Heavy Rainfall
This chart shows various
reasons for corporate climate
action grouped into color-coded
categories. It shows how many
companies identified each driver
as being important (the higher it
is on the vertical axis, the more
companies reported it) and the
emphasis they placed on it being
a risk (to the right of the broken
line) versus an opportunity (to
the left of the broken line). For
further details on the categories
of risk and opportunity, see
Table I on page 28.
T
he risks and opportunities shown in the Motivation
for Business Action chart influence how companies
develop low carbon strategies, including investments they
make and emission reduction targets they set. But if these
companies are to meet scientific guidelines on carbon
reductions to prevent dangerous climate change, are
those considerations driving companies to be ambitious
enough?
Most companies are not setting targets in line with the
science.20 More ambitious targets are particularly important
in regions with high historic and projected future levels of
carbon emissions (the EU, US and China) and within the
high emissions business sectors (utilities and heavy industry).21
We compared carbon reduction targets set
by the companies in the study with required
reduction levels needed under a low carbon
pathway to analyze whether corporate
actions and ambition are on track.
20 The scientific case is outlined in Annex I.
21
The IPCC briefings by the University of Cambridge, working with a number of
partners including BSR and WBCSD give a concise overview of of the challenges and opportunities associated with climate change in 11 key sectors. e.g. Climate Change: Implications for Transport—Key Findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014; Climate Change: Implications for Extractive and Primary Industries—Key Findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014.
Carbon Taxes
Cap & Trade
INDICATES EQUAL RISK
& OPPORTUNITY LEVELS
Emissions Reporting Policy
REPUTATION
Increasing Temperatures
Extreme Temperatures
Product Efficiency Policy
CUSTOMER DEMAND
International Agreements
Impact on Natural Resources
Changes in Rainfall
Environmental Policy
Product Labeling Policy
Change in Rainfall Patterns
Renewable Energy Policy
Air Pollution Policy
POLICY
INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS
Economic Impact on Consumer
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS
Snow & Ice
Voluntary Agreements
Company targets and
the low carbon pathway
Community Impact
Disaster Relief
CHANGING WEATHER
IMPACT ON NATURAL
RESOURCES
DECREASED #
OF COMPANIES
REPORTING
% REDUCTION TARGET, 2010 BASIS
OPPORTUNITY
Motivation for business action
0
10
20
LOW
-CAR
B
30
40
ON P
ATH
WAY
50
60
70
TARGETS BELOW THE LINE
ARE ON TRACK TO EXCEED
THE LOW-CARBON PATHWAY
80
90
100
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
SOCIAL IMPACTS
SIZE OF EMISSIONS
RELATIVE
BUBBLE
SIZE
amount
of emissions the target covers; and
In this chart, the dotted
lineOF
shows
the INDICATES
the placement of the bubble in relation to
minimum reduction targets companies must
the pathway shows how good the target is.
set to get onto a safe, low carbon pathway.
If the bubble is below the line, the target is
(See Annex I for further details about the
good—representing emissions reductions
science.) Each bubble represents a company
beyond the minimum requirements.
target; the size of the bubble shows the
12
13
Size of bubble
indicates relative
size of emissions
for that company22
22 All emissions data is normalized.
Company targets in four key sectors
Companies setting the best
targets in their region23 24
INCREASINGLY BEHIND THE
LOW CARBON PATHWAY (%)
INCREASINGLY BEHIND THE
LOW CARBON PATHWAY (%)
32%
23%
LOW CARBON
PATHWAY
N/A
15%
10%
20%
10%
0%
8%
1%
4%
18%
SECTORAL
LOW CARBON
PATHWAY
5%
7%
21%
BELOW THE LINE =
ON TRACK TO EXCEED
THE LOW CARBON
PATHWAY
56%
BELOW THE LINE =
ON TRACK TO EXCEED THE
LOW CARBON PATHWAY
28%
59%
66%
87%
INCREASINGLY AHEAD OF THE
LOW CARBON PATHWAY (%)
INCREASINGLY AHEAD OF THE
LOW CARBON PATHWAY (%)
CHINA
This chart shows how, in six key regions,
the targets of all companies—and those
of the Top Ten target setters—compare
to the low carbon pathway.
US
EU
Size of gray bubble represents relative CO2e
emissions (excluding emissions from
land-use changes) in 2010.
23 This sample includes 1,242 companies that reported meaningful Scope 1 and 2 targets in their responses to CDP in 2013 and 2014, either absolute or based on intensity reduction. An explanation of how absolute and intensity based targets were normalized can be found in Annex II.
24
INDIA
This report compares each company target to the global low-carbon pathway for its sector, a simple way to
gauge levels of corporate ambition that is most accurate for global companies operating across many countries. We acknowledge that the actual low carbon pathway will be different for each country, but defining these for all company country-level operations is outside the scope of this report.
14
BRAZIL
SOUTH
AFRICA
All reporters
Weighted average gap
between emissions
targets and the low
carbon pathway
Top 10 Target Setters
ELECTRICITY
This chart shows how, in four key
sectors,25 the targets of all reporting
companies—and those of the Top Ten
Target setters—compare to the low
carbon pathway.
INDUSTRY
TRANSPORT
Size of gray bubble represents relative CO2e
emissions (excluding emissions from
land-use changes) in 2010.
25 Companies have been allocated to the most appropriate IPCC sector. See Annex II for further information.
BUILDINGS
All reporters
Weighted average gap
between emissions
targets and the low
carbon pathway
Top 10 Target Setters
15
Many companies are setting
the bar high to reduce
emissions, and it’s working
B
ased on the set of
companies reviewed
as part of this study, we
can see most are setting
targets behind the scientific
guidelines. In addition to
the Top Ten Target setters
in each sector and region,
we identified 110 companies
who have not only set targets
that match or exceed the
scientific guidelines, but
who have also reduced their
emissions intensity between
2012 and 2013.
But even among this group, there
is a lack of post-2020 targets, which
means there is little indication of
what investments they will make to
reduce emissions further. A positive
indication that they will continue to
set aggressive targets comes from
a recent study of US businesses
undertaken by Ceres.26 They found
Decarbonizing power
that of the 20 Fortune 100 companies
with targets that ended in 2012, 85%
achieved their target and 80% have
gone on to set greater targets, or
still have ongoing targets in other
areas. However, renewing shortterm commitments gives us far less
certainty than setting clear targets
into the future. Longer-term policy
frameworks are essential to
encourage more future thinking
and ambitious commitments.
e can already see the impact
that policy frameworks
are having in some regions.
Action in the EU and US varies
considerably. For example, the
average IRR in the EU for low
carbon investments is substantially
lower than for US companies.
But the carbon returns are
substantially higher in the EU for
every US$ invested. This is due
to more stringent EU regulation
which encourages investment in
low carbon actions that will cut
emissions.
This difference is particularly marked
in the utilities sector. In the EU,
previous action by utility companies
means there are now fewer easywin efficiency options available for
coal and gas plants, so regulation is
creating the drive towards renewables
Exelon, a US power company, is one of only two
power utility companies to set a 100% carbon
emissions reduction goal and aims to achieve it by
2020 (VERBUND AG, an Austrian power company,
has set a 100% target by 2050). The company’s low
carbon strategy is based on a combination of nuclear
and renewable energy. In 2013, it retired two oil-fired
generation units and increased its nuclear capacity
through an investment of US$45M. It also invested
another US$680M in an 182MW solar generation
facility in California. It will spend US$15B over the next
five years in transmission and electricity management
systems.
Another important element of decarbonizing the
power sector is to make sure the grid infrastructure
can support the increase of renewable energy.
National Grid plays a major role in making this
happen in the US and UK. In 2013, it started work on a
600kV subsea HVDC link from Scotland to England to
support the export of renewable power. It successfully
commissioned the first commercial biogas-to-grid
project in Doncaster and introduced "Smart Energy
Solutions" to 15,000 customers in the US, including
advanced meters and communications systems, to help
customers make more informed decisions, improve
energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
26 Ceres, Power Forward 2.0: How American Companies Are Setting Clean Energy Targets and Capturing Greater Business Value, 2014.
When it comes to low carbon
investment, location matters
W
IBERDROLA, a major Spanish electricity utility, has
taken a strategic position to become a low carbon
power provider. It has 14.4GW of renewable generation
capacity installed with an average investment of
US$0.9B over 2012 to 2013 and has a further US$3.2B
of investment planned for 2014 to 2016. A focus on low
carbon power has enabled the company to achieve a
28% reduction of CO2e per MWh in 2013.
(including conversion of conventional
power plants to biomass). 96% of
emissions reductions by European
utilities came from low carbon energy
installation, with an IRR of 0%. By
comparison, in the US—where there’s
traditionally been less climate and
energy regulation—90% of emissions
reductions in the utilities sector come
from process efficiency, which has the
best IRR of 90%. Low carbon energy
generation only accounts for 6% of
carbon emissions reductions there.
The challenging financial returns that
companies in the EU data-set are
facing in many areas is an indication
that the low hanging fruit that
delivers quick financial returns has
already been harvested. To continue
to make cuts in carbon emissions,
policy measures such as financial
incentives, carbon pricing and
reduction in subsidies that incentivize
high carbon energy, are needed to
make low carbon investments more
financially attractive. The business
case for US investment in low carbon
activities is clear but policymakers
will need to encourage bigger
reductions in emissions by promoting
more effective, if more expensive,
measures.
Finding a balance
between the ‘carrot’ that
incentivizes investment
and the regulation ‘stick’
by encouraging close
collaboration between a
positively engaged business
lobby and pragmatic
policymakers is at the heart
of the We Mean Business
agenda.
Financial
and carbon
returns
achieved by
forwardthinking
companies
FINANCIAL
RETURN
REGION
REGION LEADERS
200%
SOUTH AFRICA
LEADERS
100%
INDIA LEADERS
EU LEADERS
US
SOUTH
AFRICA
US LEADERS
This log scale chart shows how, in four
key regions, the forward-thinking group
of companies (those who reduced
emissions intensity from 2012-2013
and have a target in line with the low
carbon pathway) compare to their peers
in terms of the overall internal rate of
return on their low carbon investments
(shown on the vertical axis) and the
amount of emissions savings they achieve
per US$1,000 invested (shown on the
horizontal axis).
INDIA
10%
EU
1%
1
10
CARBON RETURN
(Tonnes CO2 Saved / US $1,000 investment)
16
100
200
Emerging economies report
good carbon and financial
returns on investment
T
he companies in India
and South Africa, in the
sample reviewed as part
of this study, show that
businesses can make strong
financial returns while
achieving high levels of
emissions reductions.
This is because these countries have
more recently started out on their
low carbon journey and have access
to proven and available technologies
to achieve reductions in carbon
emissions.
But for these markets to keep
enjoying financial and environmental
success, they need affordable access
to the growing range of low carbon
technologies being developed and
proven in other markets. This is
one of the crucial responsibilities of
both major exporters of low carbon
technology and of the international
climate process. Enabling low
carbon markets to flourish is a
potentially significant financial ‘carrot’.
Technology for reducing emissions
needs to be commercially available
to emerging markets at the same
time policies can help incentivize
companies in these regions to
innovate and develop products and
services that can be exported.
Companies in emerging economies
will also be able to make the most
of the low carbon opportunities on
offer if they are supported by their
international counterparts through
supply chain initiatives and sharing of
best practice.
18
Low carbon innovation
where it’s needed most
For some companies, the biggest opportunity for
managing climate change risks and making the
most of energy efficiency opportunities lie beyond
their own operations.
CDP's Supply Chain Program—
which has 66 members with a
combined spend of US$1.3T—
provides a platform for
companies to help customers
and suppliers reduce their
emissions.
Eight companies in this program
are part of the food and drink
value chain and all recognize
that future business success will
rely on the ability of suppliers
to tackle the physical impacts
of a changing climate, as well
as becoming more resourceefficient. Reputation is also a key
driver for going the extra mile.
All of these businesses have
extremely visible and popular
brands. Maintaining their value is
of critical importance.
Walmart has set an ambitious
target to eliminate 20M tonnes
CO2e from products it sells by
2015. NestlÉ also recognizes the
need to work with suppliers, in
particular to support their coffee
growers in tackling climate
change impacts, as well as helping
them to reduce emissions.
19
Unilever is a long-standing
sustainability champion and
has set an ambitious goal to
cut carbon emissions across
the lifecycle of its products by
50% by 2020. So it’s working
with suppliers to help reduce
emissions and also helping
consumers reduce their footprint
by using Unilever products—by
building on initiatives such as
clothes detergents that work
at low-water temperatures to
reduce the energy used in a
washing cycle.
Marfrig, a food producer
in Brazil, is collaborating with
retailers to help reduce carbon.
Meat farming requires different
technologies for reducing
methane, one of the most potent
greenhouse gas emissions.
Marfrig is finding ways to capture
and process methane, as well
as introducing more typical
energy efficient technologies with
payback periods of 1-3 years.
How to
accelerate
the low
carbon
economy
Bold, forward-thinking businesses are taking
advantage of today's low carbon economy. They are
balancing investments to maximize financial returns
while delivering aggressive cuts in carbon emissions.
Section three
F
or businesses to take
advantage of today’s low
carbon economy, they need
to balance their low carbon
projects to make sure some
have a high financial return
and others have a high
carbon return.
The McKinsey cost curve27 and, more
recently, The New Climate Economy
27 McKinsey & Company, Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy Version 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve, 2009
study, illustrate what a low carbon
portfolio looks like at the global level.
28
Using macroeconomic analysis
to illustrate the different costs
associated with various low carbon
solutions, they help inform a strategy
for lowering emissions at the best
price. They provide a top-down view.
The analysis presented here shows
how businesses are maximizing the
potential of such carbon portfolios
in different sectors and regions. It
provides the ground-up view.
28 The New Climate Economy, Better Growth, Better
Climate, 2014
Based on our findings, in this final
concluding section we address two
key questions: First, how can more
businesses make the most of their
current low carbon investments?
And second, how can policymakers
support further investments which
deliver beneficial carbon and financial
rewards?
By answering both questions,
we are able to draw significant
conclusions as to how business
and government can collaborate to
ensure a low carbon future.
Bold
climate action
makes good
business sense
Balanced low carbon portfolios give
good carbon and financial returns
By developing a portfolio of
different projects, businesses can
deliver good carbon returns at the
same time as meeting conventional
financial returns.
To make the most of the balance
between high carbon and high
financial returns, smart companies
should look at the widely disparate
IRRs available today—and they can
do this in response to their own risk
profile and appetite for seizing the
opportunities.
For example, in the US, a typical
company might only approve internal
investment on projects delivering a
financial return of 15% or higher (i.e.,
projects that have a hurdle rate of
15% IRR). The low carbon projects
reported by companies included in
this study that exceeded this hurdle
rate achieved an average return on
investment of 78%—significantly
outperforming the financial criteria
needed to go ahead. However, by
evaluating projects on such a case-bycase basis, companies are missing out
22
23
on the chance of investing in projects
that cut carbon significantly, but
currently fall just below this hurdle
rate.
If companies take a balanced
approach to investment, not every
low carbon project needs to achieve
a high IRR because the portfolio as
a whole will exceed this. Portfolio
investing opens doors to investments
that reduce emissions (i.e., have good
carbon returns), but don’t necessarily
meet an internal hurdle rate on their
own merit.
This approach also means businesses
can make smarter, more strategic
decisions about investments. For
instance, they might choose to
deliver more projects that just fall
short of internal hurdle rates, or be
more radical and concentrate on
opportunities that bring more longterm financial benefits.
Smart businesses know the benefit of balance
The 110 companies that have set
carbon emission targets which
align with the low carbon pathway
—and who reduced emissions
intensity during 2012 to 2013 (see
Annex II for further details)—also
benefit from a higher-than-average
rate of return on their investments
in most regions.
In the EU, although they perform well
financially, the average tonne of CO2e
they reduce per dollar invested is
less than the regional average. In the
US, they are in line with the country
average, where all companies achieve
an impressive financial return but a
less-good carbon return.
The reason that the forwardthinking group of companies
outperforms others is not
necessarily because their attitude
toward low carbon risks and
opportunities is different, but
because the way they act on
them is.
Forward-thinking companies (in
these regions) are good at choosing
cost-effective options for reducing
emissions and at setting leadership
goals, but they will need extra
incentives and longer-term policy
frameworks to develop strategies that
include the more expensive internal
investments with higher carbon
returns.
In India and South Africa, where more
easy-wins are still on the table, the
top-performing companies pull away
from the pack to achieve better-thanaverage results for both high carbon
and financial returns.
Longer-term policy frameworks will
encourage firms to plan and prioritize
low carbon investments. Policies
that make actions with high carbon
returns more financially attractive will
also help support business action.29
29 Clear evidence of forward-thinking companies’ appetite for new policy development on climate change can be seen in the various communiqués at www.climatecommuniques.com
There is no downside to big investments
Companies that make the biggest investments (relative to their operating costs)30 receive a slightly
above-average IRR in all regions except South Africa and Brazil.31 Clearly, there’s no apparent disadvantage to
making proportionately large investments in low carbon solutions. In short, profitable low carbon investment appears
to be scalable.
Making Big Investments
makes business sense
This chart looks at those companies who
invested the most in low carbon solutions
(top 25% by investment relative to operating
costs). It shows what their overall share
of low carbon investment and emissions
savings is and what rate of return they get
on their low carbon investment compared to
their peers.
(relative to operating costs)
TOP 25% OF INVESTORS
represent:
INVESTORS
IN LOW
CARBON
GLOBAL
EU
US
SHARE OF
INVESTMENT
75%
88%
92%
SHARE OF
EMISSIONS SAVINGS
82%
92%
77%
+1%
+3%
+1%
IRR ON LOW
CARBON ACTIONS
(compared to all companies)
30 The top quartile of companies based on total investment/operating costs
31 IRR study applied at the global level and in the EU and US only, where the IRR figures for the top quartile were 4% in the EU (compared to 1% for the whole EU sample) and 21% in the US (compared to 20% for the whole US sample). Globally the top quartile received an IRR of 12% compared to the average of 11%.
Business
needs
bold policy
Policy can make high carbon
returns more financially
attractive
The strong business case
should give policymakers
greater confidence
Policy can unlock investment in low carbon actions
that can have significant carbon returns, but aren’t
currently financially attractive.
The business case for low carbon action in India
and South Africa is striking. It is acknowledged
that the companies included in the sample used
for this study are likely to represent the most
forward-thinking companies in these regions, but
it provides a good indication of what is possible.
With greater access to affordable capital and
increased awareness about the potential business
benefits of low carbon action, further projects
can be encouraged. When negotiating for an
ambitious and fair global deal, officials from
these countries can take confidence from their
national low carbon opportunities.
To encourage businesses to include more high carbon
return measures in their low carbon portfolios,
policymakers can:
• eliminate subsidies that incentivize high carbon energy
Policymakers should not
doubt that the low carbon
transformation is an
economic opportunity
Businesses still need
long-term certainty
A clear, long-term policy framework is essential if
companies are to develop thriving internal portfolios
of low carbon investment. Business has been asking for
this for many years, and low-cost/high return measures
should still be prioritized, but a more strategic approach
will encourage businesses to focus on higher emissionreducing activities and longer-term gains.
Between 2012 and 2013, some 1,450 companies reported
saving just over 420M tonnes of CO2e per year through
internal investment of more than US$170B in low carbon
projects. Within the six regions highlighted in the study,
this included around US$140B investment in nearly 5,500
projects that are delivering annual savings of a little over
320M tonnes of CO2e.
This is why a clear and ambitious roadmap to 2050 is
so essential—because it will mean that businesses will
be persuaded to make necessary, transformational
investments sooner rather than later.
Forward-thinking companies invested 7.5% of the global
total, achieved 3.3% of carbon reductions and reported an
average annual return of 27% on US$8.2B invested.
• enact meaningful pricing of carbon
• put in place robust energy efficiency standards
• support the scale-up of low carbon energy
Ongoing public sector
investment is needed to get
the best from business
• ensure that all policy regimes dealing with fiscal,
energy, industry and trade related issues provide
actionable incentives for an early transition to a low
carbon future.
While this report focuses on leveraging private sector
action, the public sector also has a critical role to play.
It can develop an infrastructure that supports a low
carbon economy—in particular the scale up of mass
transit, the development of super grids, smart grids and
power storage. It also needs to consider investment in
adaptation measures to protect those most vulnerable to
rising sea levels, temperature extremes, flooding, droughts
and extreme weather events. Securing investment from
financial institutions is not covered in this report, but
We Mean Business recognizes the importance that the
investor community has to play.
These interventions are particularly important in high
impact sectors—for example, decarbonizing the power
sector and finding low carbon alternatives to mass transit
and aviation fuel.
And it would encourage the companies that can create
low carbon products and services to direct more research
and development funding into markets that could flourish
in a low carbon economy. Many businesses have been
calling for a long-term climate policy framework for some
time, but this has not yet materialized. Business itself
must up its game, stop negative lobbying, and work with
policymakers to give them the confidence they need to
make this a reality.
However, some low carbon actions that businesses
need to take are not financially attractive. Often, the
broader business case is not strong enough to shift
transformational change—especially decarbonizing
the power sector and finding low carbon alternatives
to mass transit and aviation fuel. These are areas need
policy carrots and sticks—and changes to subsidies that
incentivize high-carbon energy.
26
27
Table I
ANNEX I: THE SCIENCE
Descriptor
Driver Name
Category Name
Reputation
Reputation
The potential impacts of public, stakeholder and customer perceptions
of a company’s carbon performance/climate change position.
Customer demand
Customer demand
The change in demand for a product or service as a result of climate change.
Renewable energy
policy
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives that promote
investment in or use of renewable energy.
Air pollution limits
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives that limit air pollution.
Environmental policy
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives that address a range of
environmental issues such as waste, water and natural resources.
Emissions reporting
policy
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives that require
companies to report carbon emission data.
Product policy
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives that require
products to meet certain low carbon requirements.
Product efficiency
policy
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives that encourage low
carbon and energy efficient products and services.
Product labeling
policy
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives that require products or services to meet
specific set of requirements to obtain a low carbon or energy efficiency label.
Cap and trade
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives that require companies to reduce carbon
emissions to a set level or to purchase credits to compensate. These regulations
also specify requirements for how companies may create carbon credits.
Fuel taxes and policy
policy
Regulation, standards or incentives directed at fuel products, mainly relating to fossil fuels.
Carbon taxes
policy
Financial mechanism for allocation a cost to carbon.
International
agreements
International
agreements
Actions or targets for companies determined by internationally binding agreements
within United Nations international conventions or any other internationally
recognized protocol.
Voluntary
agreements
Voluntary
agreements
A contract agreed between a company and the state
authorities, setting specific emissions targets.
Snow and Ice
Changing Weather
The effect of increased snow and ice on a company’s operations.
Changes in rainfall
Changing Weather
The effect of changes in rainfall patterns on a company’s operations.
Increasing
temperatures
Changing Weather
The effect of increasing average temperatures on a company’s operations.
Extreme
temperatures
Changing Weather
The effect of extreme temperatures, high or low, on a company’s operations.
Change in rainfall
patterns
Changing Weather
The effect of increasing or decreasing rainfall on a company’s operations.
Droughts or heavy
rainfall
Changing Weather
The effect of droughts or heavy rainfall on a company’s operations.
Impact on natural
resources
Impact on natural
resources
Changes in the availability of natural resources, e.g., water,
foods, etc., due to the effects of climate change.
Community impact
Social Impacts
Changes to social order, culture and prosperity of communities
as a result of physical climate or regulation change.
Disaster relief
Social Impacts
Changes to social order, population distribution and magnitude of
disaster relief as a result of physical climate or regulation change.
Economic impact
on the consumer
Social
Impacts
Changes to the availability and affordability of products and
services as a result of physical climate or regulation change.
One thing we know for certain is that to keep temperature
rise within two degrees Celsius, the world’s emissions
trajectory needs to change.32 Global emissions since
industrialization need to be limited to 1,000 Gt CO2e33
but in 2011 we were already halfway towards that limit.34
Although there are a number of safe pathways we
could take, it is generally accepted that, by mid-century,
greenhouse gas emissions need to be 40% to 70% lower
compared to 2010, and near zero Gt CO2e or below in
2100.35
The two-degree pathways used in this report (which we
refer to as the low carbon pathway) are approximated
from the analysis presented in the fifth IPCC report and
are intended to give an overall sense of what business
ambition looks like in comparison to what is required to
stay within a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius.
When looking at the focus regions, we do not attempt to
model different pathways based on regionally attributed
targets, as we see this as the responsibility of the
international climate negotiations and know that there are
many leading thinkers applying themselves to this problem
in the run up to Paris in 2016. Instead, we simply use the
overall global pathway to provide a comparison point and
to put regional emissions by the private sector in context.
Recent analysis shows that under the current businessas-usual scenario, emissions will grow by another 12% to
reach 58B tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year by 2020. To
remain on track for 2 degrees, we would need them to
be 14B tonnes lower. This difference has become known
as the ‘emissions gap’ and even if a range of government
pledges (half of which are unconfirmed) were taken
into account, the gap would still only be reduced by 6B
tonnes.36
32
In December 2010, parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to commit to a maximum temperature rise of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to consider lowering that maximum to 1.5°C in the near future. (Carolyn Symon, Climate Change: Action, Trends and Implications
for Business, Briefing, Cambridge Judge Business School and Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership, 2013)
33
Reduced to 790Gt when accounting for non CO2 forcings (Stocker, T.F., D. Qin,
G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M.
Midgley (eds.), 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, page 27, 2013)
34Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels,
Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.), 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC,
page 27, 2013
35Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B.Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S.
Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.), 2014: Summary for
Policymakers, In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution
of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, IPCC, page 13, 2014
36UNEP, The Emissions Gap Report 2012, United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), 2012
29
ANNEX II: METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
Company Data Sources
CDP data used in this report is based on company
information provided in CDP 2013 and CDP 2014 responses.
Financial data used in the analysis are those reported by
Yahoo! Finance or Financial Times in August 2014.
Currency Conversion
All currency data have been set to their equivalent $USD
using the average annual exchange rate for the year in
which they were reported—2012 for CDP2013 and 2013
for CDP2014—as published by Oanda: http://www.oanda.com
GICS and IPCC Sector Mapping
Companies in the CDP database have been assigned to
the sectors analyzed and presented in IPCC, Working
Group III, Assessment Report 5, Technical Summary and
the associated industry sector reports, chapters 7-11.
This method is used to normalize both absolute and
intensity targets to 2010-base year.
Intensity target harmonization
with absolute emissions target
For companies where the reported target that passes
the validity filter is intensity-based, an estimated absolute
emissions target (i.e., “harmonized”) is computed using the
following formula, for company i :
Where,
Portfolio Internal
Rate of Return (IRR)
Internal rates of return are computed for investments
reported to CDP that include an associated annual
monetary return and that also pass a filter for validity.
Each investment is assigned a lifetime as noted in the
comment field or using the default Measure Lifetime table
below, according to the Activity Type designated for the
investment.
For any group of companies, i, the WAG is computed using
the following formula:
Where,
Company Growth for each company is given as the most
recent analyst consensus expected annual revenue
growth published in August 2014 by Yahoo! Finance or
Financial Times. If not available, this value is set equal to
the Regional Growth for that company.
Regional Growth is derived from International Monetary
Fund 2015 growth projections for Advanced Economies
or the Emerging Market and Developing Economies, 2.3%
and 5.3% respectively.37 Each company is assigned either
Advanced or Emerging38 growth rate according to the
location of their headquarters as reported by CDP.
Company Emissions Target
Filtering for Validity
Weighted average gap (WAG) to IPCC
2°C sector pathways (430-480 ppm)
A combination of mathematical filtering, category filtering
and expert judgment is used to select a single best target
provided by each company, prioritizing those that apply
to the largest amount of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.
See World Business Council for Sustainable Development for
definitions of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.
To create an annual target pathway for each IPCC sector,
we read the projected median point off the chart of
absolute annual direct emissions in Gt CO2eq/yr for
each sector from the chart in IPCC, WGIII, AR5, Technical
Summary, Final Draft that describe the 2°C pathways for
each sector with Carbon Capture and Storage (Technical
Summary, page 43). Linear interpolation is used to define
annual targets for each year between the years presented.
These are then converted to percent reduction for each
year based on the sector total emissions estimated by
IPCC in 2010.
To normalize all companies to a reduction target
in relation to base year 2010, linear interpolation/
extrapolation is performed according to the following
formula for company i :
In each sector, the normalized (2010 base) and
harmonized (intensity) reduction targets for each company
are compared to the percent target interpolated from the
appropriate IPCC 2°C sector pathway for the target year.
These two points define a positive gap (when the company
target is too low to achieve IPCC 2° sector pathway) or
negative gap (company target is set in excess of that
required to achieve the IPCC 2°C sector pathway) between
the IPCC pathway and the most comprehensive target
reported by each company.
Measure Lifetime
Companies classed as utilities in the CDP dataset counted
under the IPCC Electricity sector. Those companies
where the majority of their carbon footprint relates to
buildings were included in the Buildings sector group.
The Transport sector group contains those companies
providing transportation services, for example, rail and
logistics companies. The Industry sector group includes all
industrial companies and also those in oil and gas. None
of the reporting companies had ownership over emissions
in land use and forestry, so that sector has not been
included.
Target 2010 base year normalization
ANNEX II: METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
Company Emissions are the most recent Scope 1 + Scope
2 emissions reported in either the CDP 2013 or CDP 2014
datasets.
And,
Carbon Investment Index
This index is created by summing all investments by a
company reported to CDP as being made in a given year
that also pass a filter for validity, and dividing this value by
company overall operating costs in that year as reported
by either Yahoo! Finance or Financial Times in August 2014.
Behavioral change
2
Energy efficiency: building fabric
10
Energy efficiency: building services
5
Energy efficiency: processes
10
Fugitive emissions reductions
10
Low carbon energy installation
15
Low carbon energy purchase
1
Process emissions reductions
10
Product design
0
Transportation: fleet
7
Transportation: use
5
Investment Carbon Effectiveness
(ICE), Tonnes CO2e saved (lifetime) per
$USD of initial investment
All investments reported to CDP that include an associated
annual carbon emissions savings that also pass filters for
validity are pooled, set k, for a collection of companies and
the ICE is calculated using the following formula:
37 International Monetary Fund, WORLD ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SURVEYS
World Economic Outlook (WEO) Recovery Strengthens, Remains Uneven
April 2014
38 Table 1.1, Overview of the World Economic Outlook Projections, International Monetary Fund, WORLD ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SURVEYS World Economic Outlook (WEO) Recovery Strengthens, Remains Uneven April 2014
Years
31
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The contents of this report may be used by anyone
providing acknowledgement is given to CDP and We
Mean Business. This does not represent a license to
repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP
and presented in this report. If you intend to repackage
or resell any of the contents of this report, you need
to obtain express permission from CDP before doing
so. CDP has prepared the data and analysis in this
report based on responses to the CDP Worldwide
2013 and 2014 climate change information requests.
No representation or warranty (express or implied) is
given by CDP or the partners of We Mean Business
or those third parties contracted to deliver this report
as to the accuracy or completeness of the information
and opinions contained in this report. You should not
act upon the information contained in this publication
without obtaining specific professional advice. To the
extent permitted by law, CDP, the partners of We Mean
Business and contracted third parties do not accept or
assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any
consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining
to act, in reliance on the information contained in this
report or for any decision based on it.
report team:
CDP: Sara Law and Maxfield Weiss
Counter Culture: Emily Farnworth, Sophy Bristow
and Rebecca Harding
Kite Global Advisors: Larry Yu and Sophie Lambin
POINT380: Jason Denner, Ty Colman and Mark Rehnborg
Editorial Board:
BSR: Ryan Schuchard
B-Team: Peter Boyd
Ceres: Anne Kelly
CDP: Tom Carnac
The Climate Group: Damian Ryan
The Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group:
Eliot Whittington
WBCSD: Lara Birkes
We Mean Business Secretariat: Jim Walker
In the above disclaimer, “CDP” refers to Carbon Disclosure
Project North America, Inc, a not–for-profit organization
with 501(c)3 charitable status in the US and We Mean
Business refers to a coalition of charities, joined by the
common aim of avoidance of dangerous climate change.
The partners of WE MEAN BUSINESS coalition are BSR,
The B Team, CDP, Ceres, The Climate Group, The Prince
of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group and WBCSD. The
coalition has no legal status separate from its partners.
Designed by:
Pixels & Pulp
Disclaimer
This report was prepared on behalf of organizations
participating in WE MEAN BUSINESS ("WE MEAN
BUSINESS partners"). It has been commissioned in
support of the WE MEAN BUSINESS partners' shared
mission and is based on responses to the CDP Worldwide
2013 and 2014 climate change information requests.
© 2014 CDP. All rights reserved.
The We Mean Business partners work closely with
thousands of businesses and other stakeholders. This
report has benefited from the input of the organizations
comprising We Mean Business, but does not represent
the views or positions of the businesses with which these
organizations work.
32
economic oportunity through bold climate action
w: wemeanbusinesscoalition.org
|
twitter: @WMBtweets
|
#wemeanit